Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, that is some good creative thinking right there. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make Mr. Cummings aware that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The one who is in the power position, the one who has got the resources, the one that has got the attorneys is the government. The government is the one that has got all the cards. All we are asking for is to allow input from individuals, small businesses, big businesses. If you are going to be affected, isn't it common sense to suggest that maybe they should talk to the people that they are going to put this mandate on? Let's have a discussion, a dialogue, get some input from them? The name of this bill is very, very accurate, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act. What are we afraid of, asking them the question: How are you going to be impacted? What is this going to do to the economy? What I hear from my constituents--and I have heard it from outside of Utah's Third Congressional District--is the Federal Government comes in with its big, heavy hand, and they have no voice, no opportunity. It is just laid upon them. I appreciate Dr. Foxx and what she is doing. We also hear from State, local, and tribal governments, from small businesses and business organizations that are in support of this bill. In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations was between $57 billion and $84 billion. There is room. There is appropriate use of regulations. To suggest that we are opposed to all regulations is irresponsible. I think there are good regulations that are in place--they make our country better--but there needs to be a process and a communication and input from individuals that are affected by these regulations. We have got to understand the costs and how we are passing these unfunded mandates on to State and local governments. This is an important part of the process. Updating this law, we can ensure all parties, from government entities to small businesses to individuals, understand the true costs of the prospective mandates. This bill should successfully pass in the House again, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I applaud Dr. Foxx from North Carolina, the prime sponsor of this, for moving this legislation. I would urge, my colleagues, a ``yea'' vote on H.R. 50, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, a cost-benefit analysis prior to the implementation of a regulation requires a number of assumptions that make an accurate analysis difficult, if not impossible. H.R. 50 allows committee chairmen and ranking members to ask for the retrospective reviews of specific regulations. I think there needs to be a degree of deference and some respect for the idea that it is for committee chairmen and ranking members, both sides of the aisle, not just based on some whim. I think it is offensive to suggest that it be just some whimsical thing. This allows an important check on any pre-implementation cost-benefit analysis, and these retrospective reviews better clarify the true costs of regulation. Even President Obama supports retrospective reviews and issued an executive order requiring agencies to conduct them. More importantly, retrospective reviews work. In April of 2014, the GAO issued a report on retrospective reviews at 22 executive agencies. That report found that more than 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led the agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulation text--90 percent. However, the pace of retrospective review is much slower than planned, and the 22 agencies reviewed by the GAO had plans to conduct more than 650 retrospective reviews but had only completed 246 of them as of August of 2013. As you can see, the agencies are already doing this work. It is good to go back and review. We shouldn't be afraid of that. We should encourage it. This provision in the bill simply allows Congress to work with agencies to prioritize regulatory areas most important to the American taxpayer. We need to maintain the ability to make such requests, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to highlight, again, that when there was a report done by the GAO, they found that 90 percent of retrospective regulation reviews led agencies to revise, clarify, or eliminate regulatory text. All this does is ask for a report. It doesn't repeal it. It is not going to slow it down. What it does is ask for a report. That is an important process to go through, and when we have gone through it in the past, 90 percent of the time, according to the GAO, it has led to revisions that are important. It is very difficult to understand what is going to happen on the front end. All we are asking for in this bill is let's consult with the individuals, the property owners, others who are affected, and then, if we need a report, and we are going to limit that to chairmen and ranking members, that is an appropriate thing to do. What are we afraid of? We are just trying to get transparency to the issue and be able to highlight this. I worry, when you talk about the numbers of reviews and how far behind, it just shows the massive numbers of regulations that go through this process. We should be able to review those. There are real Americans that are affected by this every day. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, the prime sponsor of this bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to suggest that this bill bypasses individuals. To the contrary, the bill says, ``and impacted parties within the private sector.'' The definition of ``private sector'' under UMRA--the term ``private sector'' means ``all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals.'' Any assertion on this floor that this gives unilateral priority to the individual corporations and bypasses the individuals, we are trying to give people who are affected by these rules--we are trying to give them the opportunity to be heard. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time left on both sides?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, how much time remains?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Walker).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point to the bill because it keeps getting repeated on this floor that it doesn't include the public, it doesn't include individuals. That is just not true. On page 12 of the bill: Agencies shall, to the extent practicable, seek out the views of State, local, and tribal governments, and impacted parties within the private sector. Definition of private sector: the term ``private sector'' means all persons or entities in the United States, including individuals. It sounds like a good rhetorical point to keep saying: Oh, we are leaving out the little guy; we are leaving out the public. It does include the public; it does include the individuals; and when these unfunded mandates are placed upon them, this bill would make sure that they are at least asked about it. That is what we are seeking. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Congressman Reed and what he is trying to do here. I think this makes a lot of sense. His amendment asks agencies to consider the effects of regulatory action upon private property owners. The amendment furthers the bill's intent to provide more input from private sector entities and taxpayers affected by these regulations. It thinks of farms and other types of public land issues that we deal with, particularly out West, but across the Nation. Federal regulators should consider the effects of any regulation on private property owners. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill was referred to three other committees other than the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. We have been in contact with all of them--Judiciary, Budget, and Rules--and they have agreed to discharge the bill from their committees so that we can consider the bill on the floor today. I include for the Record those letters that reflect this understanding between Oversight and Government Reform and the three other committees. Mr. Chairman, Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to ``curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on States and local governments.'' Twenty years later, we continue to see burdensome unfunded mandates being imposed on State, local, and tribal governments as well as small businesses. Despite high hopes, UMRA, as it is often referred to, had little effect on agency rulemaking because of its limited coverage and its lack of accountability. In response, H.R. 50 proposes several key reforms to bring needed transparency to how government sets rules that protect our health, our safety, our welfare, as well as the environment. This legislation does this in several key ways. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 50 requires agencies to consult with the private sector when directly impacted by a proposed rule. Consult with the private sector. That is a great theme. I love the title of this. It does actually provide more information, more transparency, and engages those people that are affected by these rules. Requiring agency rulemakers to consult with small business owners will bring needed perspective and common sense to how our rules are made. Small businesses want the government to fully understand how regulations impact their ability to create jobs and promote economic growth. Of course we need rules. Of course there are going to be boundaries. But consulting with the private sector is something that has to happen, and government needs their perspective. The bill makes independent agencies subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, also known as UMRA. There are hundreds of Federal independent agencies charged with handling responsibilities, such as managing workplace safety and protecting our forests. It is important these entities are accountable to the public when establishing a new rule. H.R. 50 ensures that that will happen. H.R. 50 requires an UMRA analysis for all final rules. Under current law, an agency can forgo an UMRA analysis by avoiding a notice of proposed rulemaking. GAO reports that 35 percent of major rules are issued without a notice of proposed rulemaking, making it difficult for the public to comment. In fiscal year 2014, the administration estimated the annual cost of major regulations between $57 billion and $84 billion. We must have a better understanding of those costs before passing them on to State, local, and tribal governments as well as the private sector. The bill strengthens congressional oversight by requiring agencies to look back at specific regulations when requested by Congress. Before a rule is tested, it is difficult to understand its consequences, including its costs and its benefits. President Obama supported retrospective reviews of regulations by issuing an executive order requiring agencies to periodically review significant regulations, in Executive Order 13563, in January 2011. These retrospective reviews result in regulations that are more effective and less burdensome in achieving their objective. Retrospective analysis can and should inform future rules. H.R. 50 allows judicial review when agencies fail to fully consider the least costly or least burdensome alternative rule. The bill allows the judicial branch to place a stay on rules when the agency fails to complete the required UMRA analysis. This provides an important check on the executive branch. H.R. 50 codifies the Congressional Budget Office practice of estimating the true cost of a Federal mandate. When a Federal mandate is proposed, CBO ensures its cost estimates include lost profits, costs passed on to consumers, and behavioral changes as the result of a Federal mandate. When enacted, UMRA created an important step to inform Congress of the potential burdens of regulatory mandates on both government and the private sector. This way, Congress could weigh any potential benefits as well as any potential burdens. By updating this law, we can help ensure that all parties, from government entities to small businesses, understand the true cost of prospective mandates. I commend the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). She has poured her heart and soul into this. She believes passionately in this. Her leadership on this bill has brought it to this point today. It has passed three times with bipartisan support in this House, but it is necessary to bring it up again and to share this bill with a new Senate that is now in place. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 50. It is good. It is common sense. It is good for this Nation, and it enjoys bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, January 28, 2015. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On January 27, 2015, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform ordered reported without amendment H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, by a vote of 20 to 13. The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Oversight and Govemment Reform, with an additional referral to the Committee on the Judiciary. I ask that you allow the Judiciary Committee to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee on the Judiciary represented on the conference committee. Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, as well as in the Congressional Record during floor consideration, to memorialize our understanding. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 50.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor Rebecca D. Lockhart, a proud Utahn and, in fact, the immediate past speaker of the House of Representatives in Utah. Unfortunately, she passed away just a few days ago at the young age of 46. Speaker Lockhart was elected to the Utah House in 1998. She was trained as a registered nurse, and she first served on the Health and Human Services Committee but quickly threw herself into transportation issues, for which she was widely known. After her fourth session, she was appointed to the house leadership as the vice chair of executive appropriations and stayed in leadership the remainder of her time. In fact, in 2008, then-Representative Lockhart was elected as the assistant majority whip, and in 2010 she became the first female speaker of the Utah House in Utah history. Her tenure was epitomized by a more collaborative bottom-up approach that focused on having an open process where all members of the body could bring forward ideas for discussion. Becky Lockhart and her husband, Stan, raised their three children in Provo, Utah. They have been stalwarts within the party, and her presence will be keenly missed. Her trailblazing legacy will live on. May God bless Rebecca D. Lockhart and her family. We thank her for her service, and we will miss her greatly.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In conclusion, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. I look forward to working with her on a host of issues as we serve on the same committee. I can only hope that as many of them can be as bipartisan as possible. We both have a tenacious nature to fight to represent the constituencies which we represent, and do so in the spirit of making this country better. Really, that is the reason that this bill has come here today with good, broad bipartisan support. I cannot thank enough Brandon Judd from the National Border Patrol Council. He heads that group. He has been absolutely wonderful on this issue, good leadership from him. It is my honor to recommend to my colleagues and urge all Members to support the passage of S. 1691. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1691) to amend title 5, United States Code, to improve the security of the United States border and to provide for reforms and rates of pay for border patrol agents.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we love the Border Patrol and the men and women who serve on the Border Patrol. We cannot thank them enough for the hard and tough duties that they provide. It is difficult. It is hard. I have been out there in Arizona as they do this out on ATVs, chasing drug runners. It is amazing what they do and how they do it. We love them, and the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, is a good bill to help them and their families, provide a better service to them and their families, but actually save some money for the Federal Government. This is truly a bill, Mr. Speaker, that is a win-win situation. I am honored to have that bill before us today, and I urge my colleagues to support it. The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 would replace Border Patrol's current pay system and create a consistent and reliable pay system, enhance border security, and save taxpayers literally hundreds of millions of dollars. Established in 1924, today's Border Patrol relies on roughly 21,000 agents to secure some 6,000 miles of international borders between Mexico and Canada and 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico. Properly paying Border Patrol agents and responsibly managing a payroll system are critical to the mission of the United States Customs and Border Patrol, often referred to as CBP. Thirteen months ago, November 20, 2013, the Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing to examine the Border Patrol's compensation policies. The hearing focused on a report by the Office of Special Counsel documenting abuse of a type of overtime within the Border Patrol. The OSC testified to longstanding abuse of overtime within the Border Patrol, including by headquarters employees who regularly extended their day by roughly 2 hours and padding their paychecks by an additional 25 percent. Administratively uncontrollable overtime, AUO, was established more than 40 years ago to pay employees for ``irregular, unscheduled, but necessary overtime.'' The Department of Homeland Security is one of the largest users of AUO within the Federal Government, with Border Patrol accounting for more than 75 percent of the paid AUO. Border Patrol agents receive between 10 and 25 percent of their basic pay through AUO, depending on the average number of irregular overtime performed per week. Generally, agents themselves are responsible for recognizing without supervision the circumstances which require them to remain on duty beyond regular hours. They are down on the border; they are pursuing somebody who is coming across illegally. You can't just say, ``Well, time to go home.'' Oftentimes, they work for hours and hours in continued pursuit of these people that had come across illegally. Under AUO, most agents earn up to 25 percent of their base salary for time worked in excess of 80 hours in a pay period. Agents may earn additional overtime compensation that is generally paid at 50 percent above the regular rate. Total overtime costs for Border Patrol agents, including pay and benefits, was $627 million in 2013 while total compensation costs for those agents was $3.1 billion in that same year. During the hearing, it became clear that AUO is ill-suited to be meet the needs of today's Border Patrol. In response, I joined with Senators Tester and McCain in introducing legislation to provide Border Patrol a cost-effective and flexible overtime system called the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act. DHS pledged to work with the committee to find a solution at an affordable cost, and that is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, under current law, Border Patrol agents who work beyond 85.5 hours to meet mission requirements are generally paid time and a half. Under the bill, agents will annually elect one of three pay options: number one, work 100 hours per biweekly pay period and increase their base salary by 25 percent; work 90 hours and receive a 12.5 percent base salary increase; or work no overtime at all. Unscheduled overtime will be treated as comp time with no monetary compensation. The bill eliminates Fair Labor Standards Act overtime which results in significant savings to the taxpayer. The Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act generally requires 90 percent of Border Patrol agents to work 100 hours each per pay period while CBP expects that most remaining agents would work 90 hours per pay period. This staffing floor will allow supervisors to more effectively plan border security operations. To help ensure accountability, the bill requires the Border Patrol to undertake a detailed assessment of its operational requirements and staffing needs at every Border Patrol station within 1 year of enactment and submit it to Congress for review. The GAO will examine CBP's methodology and analysis and within 90 days submit a report to Congress indicating whether GAO concurs with CBP's assessments. Border Patrol has flexibility in the staffing floor based on the results of that assessment. The bill grants CBP management authority to unilaterally assign agents to work additional hours if the security situation along the border necessitates it. The bill reflects months of negotiation and congressional review and is supported by the National Border Patrol Council. I personally cannot thank the National Border Patrol Council enough for their good work, tenacity on this issue, and their deep desire to make the agents' lives better. They represent some 17,000 agents. CBO estimated that implementing the Senate bill, S. 1691, would save roughly $100 million per year. Costs would decline under Senate bill S. 1691 mostly because Border Patrol agents would no longer receive compensation required under the FLSA. This is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of good, bipartisan support. If I am not mistaken, it passed unanimously in the Senate. We have held hearings in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. I want to personally thank Chairman Issa for his good work. I also want to thank Leader McCarthy and Speaker Boehner for allowing this bill to come to the floor. Homeland Security Chairman McCaul and Congresswoman Miller have been pivotal on this. Members from both sides of the aisle, like Dave Reichert, Mr. O'Rourke, and Ron Barber have worked hard on this issue and care about this as well. I, again, appreciate their bipartisan support. And bicameral support, there has been good work from Senator Tester and Senator McCain, who cares deeply about Border Patrol issues, and certainly Senator Carper for making this a reality. It is an honor to have this bill before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.